Tetryonics - The Charged Geometry of EM Mass-Energy-Matter by Kelvin Abraham

Frank,

You're right about the antenna for either design being able to receiver each type of wave.

As I see it the longitudinal wave would act as a carrier signal like we already do, you could encode information as frequency variations on top of this carrier signal [as we already do in AM] of use the LW own momenta as information[by varying the voltage that produced it - a LW version of FM].

Either way, if we were to filter out the information superimposed on the LW carrier frequency we would measure it has a couple of different features to a typical AM carrier signal.

The measured carrier wave would be a longitudinal wave and its momenta (at the receiver) would be varying in a way that contains information. This signal variation would be a fluctuation in the Voltage per second [E=hv]rather than a Frequency per second variation[E=hf] as is normally employed in radio communications.

In short it would be a Longitudinal variation that decodes into intelligible information that you would be looking to discriminate for [ie Voltage fluctuations]

All that is needed for such a system to work (and transmit information of vast distances instantly) would be a source of constant LWs - may I suggest our own SUN. It has been doing that since its birth and its LW should have reached a few billion light years out by now. [perhaps SETI has been looking in the wrong direction all this time - ET uses stars to communicate with each other]Attachment #1: Figure_79.06__FTL_Communications_800x600.jpgAttachment #2: Figure_79.09__Interstellar_communication_800x600.jpg

Alan,

I see where your coming from - but here's my two-bobs worth.

All EM radiation is subject to the inverse square law.

The distance from the SUN to the Earth is 1AU (or 150M KM on average)

The distance from the EARTH to JUPITER is 4-6Au [778M km)

Making EM influences from Jupiter many orders of magnitude weaker that that received from the SUN.

The SUN is s giant arc furnace and the dominant source of Energy for the entire solar system and it is its fluctuations that I say drive your graphed variations of Temp & CO2 levels in the Earth's environment.

Re FUSION [and the WE'RE STAR STUFF claims] I agree complete baloney!

Stars convert Matter into Energy not by fusion but by 'collapsing' the Matter in their cores, turning it into radiant energies. Tetryonics dictates processes from the quantum level up - Forces, Constants, Matter geometries, Chemical compounds, DNA etc etc - and shows that the Proton-Proton chains energy model is wrong. [scientists know this as well that's why the coulombic barrier presents such a problem for them - and why their fusion reactors don't work)

Matter to Energy collapse is 100% efficient [as opposed to

Abraham,

I'm delighted that we agree on the baloney of "star stuff". I also agree on the solar collapsing of ordinary matter into something very different. It should also be remembered that the mechanism of supernovae is a complete mystery to modern science. My hypothesis is that gravitational radiation from this collapsed matter *isn't* subject to the inverse square law simple because it isn't emitting isotropically, but is concentrated on the plane of rotation of the star. Distance isn't as big an issue as with ordinary matter.

It took me around 6 months with deep discussion with Andre from Holland to appreciate the fallacies of modern ice age data interpretation. The evidence for warm waters regularly pushing into the Arctic basin is published in scientific reports. This can only be achieved by an substantial increase in global tidal energy imo. Milankovitch cycles, or sunlight only forcing models, have one significant problem which my hypothesis solves and yours doesn't unfortunately, namely, *the unsplit peak problem*.

[quote]The unsplit peak problem refers to the fact that eccentricity has cleanly resolved variations at both the 95 and 125ka periods. A sufficiently long, well-dated record of climate change should be able to resolve both frequencies,[15] but some researchers interpret climate records of the last million years as showing only a single spectral peak at 100ka periodicity. [end quote]

The evidence is extremely clear imo.

Alan,

This is what I like ... something to make me learn new things, think about them and see how it all fits together.

I must confess to my ignorance to the finer details of this matter [Milankovitch cycles etc] as to date I have been consumed with getting Tetryonics out of my head onto paper so it can be shared but the topic does raise some interest with me.

As with all theories the devil is in the detail and accordingly I would love to develop a 3D computer simulation of the solar system dynamics at play here along with an appropriate climate model of the Earth and its responses but alas I only have a desktop computer at present.

I would however point out that Tetryonics clearly shows that collapsed standing-wave Matter-energies form radiant EM energies - which have Electric & Magnetic components to their divergent energies and as such are indeed subject to the inverse square laws (with the E field being equatorial and in alignment with the solar ecliptic). In fact the E field does all the interacting with the planets and the B field causes perturbations in orbital mechanics closer into the SUN [as noted by Le Verrier and corrected for in GR]

As the SUN is a charged body moving through space it is subject to variations due to its interactions with its surrounding environment [as evidenced with its CME, sunspots cycles etc.] - modelling the causal field dynamics in order to be able to develop a predictive model is another matter [we can't even to a 5 day weather forecast].

I can obviously offer advice as to what Tetryonics dictates from the quantum level to the cosmological scale regarding EM interactions etc. but I am a long way off developing a fully fledged hypothesis on all the interactions at work.

But it does intrigue me as part of my work on my next eBook [Tetryonic Cosmology]

I should also add as a footnote that all EM fields follow the Biot-Savart law [see attached].

ie from any radiative 'point' source

E fields follow inverse square law &

B fields follow inverse cubed law

and that is why B fields produce fine perturbations close to the radiating bodies while E fields are a longer range force [with their distinct Tetryonic EM field geometries affecting their regions of influence as well].

Another fun fact often overlooked by students [or not taught at all]Attachment #1: Figure_04.28__BiotSavart_800x600.jpg

Abraham,

We think very similarly when you say "This is what I like ... something to make me learn new things, think about them and see how it all fits together." and "As with all theories the devil is in the detail and accordingly I would love to develop a 3D computer simulation of the solar system dynamics at play here along with an appropriate climate model of the Earth and its responses but alas I only have a desktop computer at present."

Yes, I totally agree on the necessity of a detailed simulation model of the solar sytem and the climate. As I've mentioned before in my own discussion area, I think we should start with the correct modelling of the creation of the moon. Not a simple task.

Good luck with your new book and Tetryonics.

Thanks Alan,

And Yikes!!!

A computer simulation of the creation of the moon, and I thought unifying QM, QED, Chemistry and GR was ambitious.

But modelling all those processes are possible now that we have a complete quantum theory of mass-ENERGY-Matter...it just requires time and coding skills...hopefully in the process it will help explain why the moon happens to be the exact right size to create solar eclipses for us to view the solar coronas.

Surely that's not a co-incidence of nature ....but that's another story.

:) and the polyhedrization tending towards the infinity due to the sphere you know ? it is not possible to create an other form than a sphere in a "pure rational polyhedrization logic".

ps INSERT THE VOLUMES OF SPHERES CONSIDERING THE SERIE, FINITE AND PRECISE, OF UNIQUENESS.Indeed the finite groups are essential for real quantization of our mass. Their rotations are proportional with mass !

ps2 perhaps that the binar system is just a fusioned system, where the stabilities of steps due to volumes, are encoded. if it exists two main sense differciating these bosons and fermions considering the linearity of hv. So we can extrapolate the proportions and so the steps of energies due to volumes and rotations.

We can class all the spheres !so we can class all, becuse all is composed by spheres of light turning in a very incredible complexity. The heat and thermo.are very relevant considering the finite groups and the closed evolutive sphere. The spheres of light and the spheres of mass !!!they build these spheres !

Regards

It is your choice to prefer the Equil.Geom.

But you know they are everywhere these spheres you know.You live even on a sphere, you turn around a sphere and ....all turns relativistically everywhere you know.

Insert my spheres and my spherization theory and my equations and you shall see still better. so your third book will still better.

The improvement my friend, the spherization optimization imrpovement.

Regards

Ha, the moon's exact fit over the sun is a co-incidence imo, but more of one than you might think. I believe that not only is the moon receding from the earth, currently at 3.7cm/yr, but that it also approaches our planet as well in the 1,500yr millennial cycle. This is the spikey peaks in the ice age data already seen. The moon's irregular matter interacts with our earth's when it crosses the equator every 2 weeks, hence the spring tides! The maximum tide raising forces of the moon occur on a calculated cycle of 1,800 years, but this hasn't been adjusted for dark matter interaction which will speed-up the cycle.

I hope you can appreciate the interconnectedness of this irregualr matter hypothesis. One last point: How do you suppose that mountains are formed? By the ultra-slow plate movements as given in school text books? Think again. This uplift would be quickly eroded by weathering, wouldn't it?

Alan,

You're right about the moon receding from the Earth - this is easily confirmed with laser ranging - but the current model of attractive-only gravitation cannot explain it.

Under that model the moon should spiral into the Earth [unless a force was acting on it to give it a velocity increase] and that is exactly what is happening.

By modelling the Math of Gravity on observations [instead of its quantum foundations] you model a NETT attractive force between large-scale Matter - in fact there are a number of forces including EM [as any nuclear scientist will tell you].

But to not acknowledge the presents (and effect) of the Earth's EM field on its own satellites is a bit like saying the Earth is flat [despite the evidence to the contrary].

A fully fledged quantum theory of Gravity must rely on a quantum foundation else it will need to be corrected every time better observations are made of the motion of planetary bodies as has historically been the case [Newton, Le Verrier, Einstein, Dark Matter].

I would argue [and will prove in Tetryonic QG] that your Dark matter halo can easily be replaced with the interactive, inverse forces generated by the Earth's own EM field, or at the least that this should be done before any other components like DM are considered.

Re- the mountains - I haven't given it much thought.

I do note that the Himalayas are made up of soft marine limestone that should have weathered as you say but it also had to form from a sea-level sedimentary deposit so it had to be transported up into their current location by some process over a relatively short period of time [another consideration for me to keep in mind].Attachment #1: Figure_70.05__Gravitational_Tidal_Forces_800x600.jpg

Steve,

With all due respect to the aforementioned scientists, I think the paper I submitted for this essay competition covers it with regard to whether spheres or tetrahedrons rule as the base geometry on the quantum scale.

Science's current obsession with circular pi geometries instead of equilateral pi radians is understandable given that our mathematical formulations of physics have pi peppered throughout them - but I ask that you step out of the dogmatic mindset of pi as being the ratio of a circle to its diameter and consider what happens when you use equilateral pi radian geometries.

All the Math remains the same and you get a sensible geometry for all the particles and forces [see my paper - I believe it is a good summary of the 1300 illustrations I have produced to date covering all of physics] - and it solves so many of science's current mysteries in a clear concise way through geometry.

In short I didn't change the Math - I changed the geometry it is based on - hence Tetryonics - revealing the electro-mechanical geometry of quantum mechanics through the charged geometry of mass-ENERGY-Matter.

that seems interesting for the taxonomy.

You seem thinking like Mr Witten. In 2d of course. we can converge in 3D.

The real ask is so , binar system or fusioned system for the serie of polarization. I prefer personnaly the second, it is more logic. The volumes and the density so are keys for the separtion m/hv. The rotations and the sense make the rest.

Pi is relevanty indeed, it is a constant like many constants. The groups and the classments of thse groups become relevant considering my equations.

Abraham,

I'm glad we agree on the irregular nature of the moon's recession which can't be simulated with conventional gravity models. I was alarmed when I read "..that your Dark matter halo..", no(!), not a halo outside the matter, but condensed irregular matter *INSIDE* the planets and stars! This is a major difference between mine against other DM models. I understand that you are pursuing extra EM forces as the solution and I was heart-warmed when you said "..can easily be replaced with the interactive, inverse forces generated by the Earth's own EM field, or at the least that this should be done before any other components like DM are considered." Yes, I respect your position and hope that one day one of us will be shown to be right.

Thank you for the limestone/Himalaya info. I was unaware of that particular case. The irregular matter comet impact scenario is the best fit imo of course. This is the only viable model of mountain building if one is stringent enough in the analysis.

Kind regards

Alan & Abraham,

There are many misconceptions about dark matter, but from the standpoint of it's justification as evidenced by the conflict between galactic and Keplerian rotation curves, as I understand only a specific configuration of dark matter that both increases total galactic mass AND significantly extends the peripheral boundary and its mass distribution can fit the observed rotation curves within the context of the laws of planetary motion.

Characteristic Keplerian rotation curves produce rather flat curves for the planets relatively close to the Sun - they diminish markedly at increasing radii. Since galaxies only exhibit relatively flat curves, it is considered that they must represent only the inner radius of the actual galaxy mass distribution. In this way it's thought that the characteristic diminishing Keplerian rotation curves at the outer radii (comprised of dark matter) would be exhibited (if only they could be observed).

As I understand then, configurations that increase the mass within the visible galaxy, such as dark matter within massive objects, would not produce the observed flat rotation curves, unless the amount of dark matter outside the visible galaxy were commensurately increased and the galaxy periphery is also significantly extended.

Of course I'm not an astrophysicist, but I think the references in "Supplemental Information" section of my essay, http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1419, under the heading "Dimensional constraints for any possible galactic Dark Matter halo" address this issue. If I recall, it's thought that the dark matter halo must extend to a radial distance of 300,000 light years in order to resolve the conflict with Keplerian rotation curves. Of course, if it doesn't do that, galactic dark matter serves no purpose!

I hope this helps, and wasn't too tedious...

Abraham et al,

I'm just a pedestrian passerby, but these discussions have been very interesting. I also agree that there is some physical process that produces gravitational effects that has not been identified - only the end results have been ingeniously described, that errors can and have occurred as a result of this incomplete understanding.

Kelvin, if you are hinting that EM processes contribute to the effects attributed solely to gravitation, I suspect you are correct. However, I think there is a physical process directed associated with mass that produces most gravitational effects.

Wouldn't an EM contributing factor to gravitational effects produce varying results relative to mass for the hot Sun and the cold Moon? While I think the proximity adjustment included in GR for Mercury's orbit could be the product of a short range EM effect, but I also agree with Frank Makinson that in classical terms a very proximal object, even if its is a perfectly spherically symmetrical distribution mass, cannot be treated as a single point mass. As I understand, if the 'surface' of the Sun occupied much of an observer's horizon in the sky, many vectors of attraction would have to be calculated and then vector summed to accurately determine the attractive force between the two bodies.

As I have said, I think that the crucial issue identified in the referenced "Galaxy Rotations" chart is that "Newtonian gravitation" (actually Kepler's laws of planetary motion) is perceived as describing only a central attraction. As I referenced in my essay's "Supplemental Information" section, several physicists have produced models successfully describing galaxy rotational characteristics without relying on any simplistic centralized attraction. For example, please see: Modeling the Newtonian dynamics for rotation curve analysis of thin-disk galaxies. The chart is also incorrect in stating that "Gravity can only produce spheres or ellipsoids" - it obviously also can produce spirals galaxies, and the gravitation of interacting galaxies is 'interactive'.

The Galaxy Rotation Problem was erroneously manufactured by applying Keplerian rotation curves to spiral galaxies (as shown in the "Galaxy Rotations" chart Abraham referenced). That error does not actually represent Newtonian gravitation, as shown in my reference above. It's interesting to me that whoever produced that chart also recognized that it was (the idea that) gravitation's effects are only centralized that produces the requirement for galactic dark matter - Kelvin?

If you plan to explain the erroneously identified 'gravitational effects' now attributed to dark matter with some long range EM effect, I'm afraid that you might be grossly overestimating EM's contribution to gravitational effects...

I'm always the naysayer, so realize that I'm just looking to make sure 'the system works before its implemented.' I certainly can't evaluate all the really incredible work that you've done - I'm just trying to help!

Best wishes in your ambitious endeavor!

James,

You're right in stating that I am asserting that there is more to gravity than a single attractive force as historically formulated in the Math itself.

Of course that is what science has been searching for ever since GR was formulated but 'our' current understanding of QM doesn't permit this. [Enter Tetryonics - the CHARGED geometry of mass-ENERGY-Matter].

Gravity is comprised of 3 distinct forces which have been modelled as one attractive force because we built our mathematical model on observations not a quantum model of the interactive forces at play [Maths without Models is Muddles].

- The attractive force of Matter [tetrahedral standing--wave energy geometries] created by the interaction of its geometry with the surrounding Space-Time environment and

- The interactive forces of EM masses [2D radiant energies] in it associated radiant fields [heat, temp, KE energies]

But G fields and E fields obey inverse squared laws but

M fields obey a inverse cubed law [and is a much shorter range force].

Newton modelled the nett force of G as a weak super-positioned E field

[which implies that G is just a weaken form of an E field - ie both can modelled as a energy gradient - hence why Newtons G formulation looks so much like Coulomb's Q formulation]

Einstein modelled it as a curvature of Space-time around a material body [which is the correct model] - Tetryonics proves this and the quantum reasons how Matter generates this curvature [and the geometry itself].

Newton's model works because it only seeks to model the observed motions [hence "I offer no hypothesis"] and GR corrects the finer EM perturbations that result from forces close to large-scale Matter but fails to identify what causes these perturbations as the Stress-Energy tensor GR employs offers not distinction between mass & Matter. [Tetryonics builds this definition into it foundation and enforces it clearly through geometry].

That's why GR reduces to Newtonian G at distances away from Matter [where the "relativistic G" fields are weaker]. the use of Photons & EM waves as a method of testing 'gravitational bending" and similar must stop - they only test SR effects inherent in GR's formulation.

Matter at the macroscopic scale may be spherical but it comprised entirely of equilateral charged fascia and emits a radiant EM field proportional to its temperature, mass and motion in space. Tetryonics provides the charged geometries for ALL the Elements, Allotropes and compounds possible in book 3 - Quantum Chemistry (on YouTube)] facilitating the accurate modelling of Matter from the quantum scale up..

In summary regarding the quantum source and strength of gravitational attraction my next eBook - Tetryonic Cosmology will go through all of these points in much greater detail than here but it will reveal the Gravitational Constant to have a 'stepped' pi value - (4pi) - Newtonian G only - (6pi) - G&E field interactions - (8pi) - GEM field interactions wrt to their combined equilateral quantum field geometries [that result in our observed Gravitational force of attraction].

I hope this helps to clarify things.Attachment #1: Figure_67.11__Gravity_geometry_800x600.jpgAttachment #2: Figure_66.03__Charge_vs_Gravity_800x600.jpg

James,

I agree with your summary about the distribution of DM in galaxies to produce the observed rotations and Matter distributions.

As a quick way to provide a reply response to this point see attached. I think it sums it all up in one picture [note the Matter distribution wrt the galactic EM field]

The geometry of energy [GEM] fields is fixed resulting in many things historically modelled mathematically in Physics [Constants, mass-Matter geometries, Forces etc] and in this case (when fully revealed) explains DE and well as DM.Attachment #1: Figure_72.01__The_Plasma_Universe_800x600.jpg

Abraham,

Thanks for responding and explaining - sorry for being so slow. The charts are eventually helpful.

Don't inverse-square relations simply represent a geometric radial dispersion through space?

Doesn't GR's curvature of spacetime actually represent the radial contraction or compaction of spatial and temporal dimensions rather than a pressure gradient?

Can't the 'attractive force' also be represented as the interaction between two opposingly directed fields of radially contracted dimensional spacetime?

At any rate, the one question I would most like you to respond to is this: if any EM charge flow affects the net attraction between objects of mass, wouldn't the attraction produced by the Sun be substantially greater than that produced by the Moon, relative to their individual masses?

Thanks very much for your patience and understanding!